Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Polar S625X vs Garmin Forerunner
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Pretty much my feeling too. I've now done the test twice first thing in the morning and both times it has given me the same result: HR-max 185, VO2-max 59 (I'm 38). I guess those results are plausible, but I just don't know.
Every method I've come across for measuring true HR-max sounds so horribly painful (and potentially lethal) that I can't bring myself to do it! I think I'm just far too lazy to run "flat out" for 3 minutes.
However, taking the Polar value of 185, I find I'm running 10k in training at about 85% of HR-max. I think that means I'm at the top end of my aerobic zone, which I guess means I'm probably working a bit too hard, but that if I was racing I should aim to go a bit quicker. Can anyone tell me if that sounds right? Should I be aiming to run a bit slower in training (which I would find tough for psychological reasons)?
'is it possible to get distance measurements to more than one decimal place?'
do you mean on the watch display or on the pc?
I must admit I'm a bit confused by this! I did a 10k run on a track today to try calibrate my watch. In the file stored on the watch it tells me that I ran 6.1 miles. On the PC it gives me two extra decimal places (when I look at the lap times). My conclusion is that if I need "accurate" distance meaurements (eg for calibration purposes) I can get it from the PC.
What's your experience?
Also, seems to be a lot of posts about calibration & difference between watch data and pc data (has anyone spoken to polar's technical helpline to clarify)
PS. Now that I've got the watch please post only positive feedback!!!!!! ;-)
I am a bit confused by th edistance readings though. If the wrist unit can give me two decimal places as I run, then why does the file only store 1 ?
One More Mile's response above seems to refer to PC menus.
Mi only moan is the units used, as i run with miles and i am used to to measuring height in metres. is there anyway to have mixed unit?
also if i switch between the two i seem to confuse my pc or nokia which typically confuses me!
any ideas?
Willem Minten (Belgium)has done some very excellent investigations into the s625x. Its a little heavy reading but is what most 625x users on the yahoo site are relying on.
All questions concerning distance accuracy at sample times and lap times are thoroughly investigated. Polar would be wise to fix some of the bugs he has found.
http://users.telenet.be/wy/sport/S625X/S625X Accurate Speed-Distance Measuremnt.htm#_Toc91062425
Your advice on setting more decimal places on the S625X has confused me. I cant find the settings you describe below on either the software or the watch. Can you help.
Ran a 10K today and the watch said 51:19 and the software decided it was 50:20. On the distance the software said 5.9 miles and the watch said 6 miles. Anyone had this problem?
You can get 3 decimal places by:
(1)Menu-(view)/(Listing)- This will show 3 decimal accuracy for each sample point.
(2)Menu-(view)/(laps times)/(speed) - Same accuracy but for each recorded lap.
starting to get on my tits now not as you might call it a very user friendly devise is it?
Both cases are in the PPP SW. To see 3 digit accuracy for each sample point, just click on the View menu at the top of the window, you'll see the Listing selection there. When you see the listing table, right click on the mouse and select properties option and then check the distance box. Your listing show now show accurate distances.
I guess this box is not checked initially, but not sure.
Only query is the temperature which seems to display about 6 - 8° higher than it actually is. (I didn't realise it had a thermometer before I bought it so I guess its a bonus).
Has anybody else experienced this?
I also found the altitude function a bit dubious- having set it carefully using an OS map, I found that, on a circular route, my start and finish points were 20m different.
But it's still gives a guide to inclines, although I have to say I tend to leave the altitude funstion switched off now.
I bet there are more than one runner who has placed a copy of your post on the kitchen table with a big red circle around it!
Awhile ago I complained to Polar about the temperature problem. They said the microchip containing the temperature and barometer functions was borrowed from another watch that was used for cyclists. So runners will not find the temperature of much use but they would use the altitude function.
Before a run, I remove the watch from my wrist and take a 5 minute recording while pressing the lap button every 30 seconds. The temperature is thus saved for each lap. By examining each lap I can determine when the temperature has leveled off. I take this value and place it as a note on the PPP plot of the real recording. If I'm out for several hours I will take a another temperature recording at the end and the average the two.
you have to take the watch off for a while to get an accurate reading, so the it is reading the air temp not your skin temp/air temp inside your hundred layers of clothes!
however how many mountaineers are going to just take they watch off when they are 6000m up a mountain in the himalayas with the temperature all ready down to -30oC with wind chill!!
mmmm not many me thinks, i dont think it makes to much sense, but i did like your point and idea onemoremile.
Significant discrepancies in time and distance between watch and PC.
Any ideas please?
Need to be more specific. Heartrate, distances, energy expended?
Specifics then :-
For a run which my watch 'correctly' files as 5.1 miles with all Heart Rates measured and stored in the File, and a time of 47 or so minutes the PC file gives 3.8 miles and 34 miuntes :0(
It's as if some of the data is 'lost' in the ether between watch and PC
I have tried deleting the exercise file from th ediary and sending it again, same results.
I haven't seen that problem. However, I dod update the PPP SW with its latest release soon after I bought the watch. So maybe that problem was cleaned with the latest fix. Have you done anything with getting the latest version of PPP?
I only bought the watch a couple of weeks ago, so I assume Ihave th elatest PPP SW ?
Just downloaded this morning's run and once again only 2/3 of the sample points have been transfered.
No, Polar does not give you latest version of PPP SW when you bought the watch, especially for bug fix releases.
Another question, does this problem occur for each run? Try a couple of 10-minute walks/runs and see if the problem is intermittent or not. I don't believe the problem is with the transmission of data from the watch to the PC as error checking is being done and you'll get message when data is not transmitted properly (Time out error).
I would also call the Polar helpline and also post you're problem at the yahoo 625x forum. Someone in this 800 member community may have experience a similar problem.
My 'cut offs' are quite dramatic though, only 15 minutes transferred for a half hour run.
Thans for your e-mail OMM, have replied, with responses to some of your suggestions.
I will take a look at the Yahoo group too. Thanks
I mentioned a simalar problem on this thread earlier in the week:
"Ran a 10K today and the watch said 51:19 and the software decided it was 50:20. On the distance the software said 5.9 miles and the watch said 6 miles. Anyone had this problem?"
I have contacted Polar but they have ignored me. How do they get away with marketing such junk, I cant get over the temperature only working if you do not have the watch on your wrist. Mine only starts to measure temperature after the start button has been pushed 3 times!!!! The running pace on the watch lags by about 10 seconds which is also a pain.
The difference between 5.9 and 6.0 corresponds to 98.4% accuracy, well within the watch's specifications. From what I know from reading Willem's document (see reference about), there may be several things going on in your case.
(1) The watch transfers speed values, not distance values to the PPPSW. Suppose your samples were at 5 sec intervals. The PPP SW must use these interval samples for calculating distances. However the watch appears to display and use speed samples more frequently than 5 secs (2-3 secs most likely) for calulating distances internally. These internal distances are saved in the file when you press stop or lap. This is one reason why you may be seeing a discrepancy.
(2) There may be speed spikes, or zero values (sleepy sensor issue) in the speed plot. These should be edited out, which may help resolve some of the distance discrepancy.